Ling-Temco-Vought A-7E Corsair II

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

Aircraft: Ling-Temco-Vought A-7E Corsair II

 

Classification: single-seat, carrier-based light-attack aircraft 

 

Visuals: 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description: After the Air Force had decided to upgrade and modify the A-7 platform into the much more capable and advanced A-7D, the Navy decided its own A-7A/Bs needed more power and improved avionics in 1969. To do this, the Navy decided to install the same TF41 turbofan and avionics from the A-7D in their own upgraded aircraft, known as the A-7E.

 

Several other changes from the A-7D made its way into the Navy’s A-7E, including the General Electric M61A1 Vulcan rotary cannon and similar missile/bomb ordnance often carried by the Air Force’s units. The A-7E also used an identical weapons delivery and navigational system as used in the A-7D, but omitted the latter’s C-8230/AWE armament station and control unit. The A-7E was equipped with the AN/APQ-126(V) forward looking radar. 

 

The A-7E first entered fleet service with the VA-174 Hellrazors, an east Coast Replacement Air Group in Florida. It went on to enter combat over Southeast Asia with VA-81 Sunliners and VA-83 Rampagers aboard the USS Forrestal.

 

The A-7E Corsair II saw service in light attack squadrons until March 1991 when the remaining units station with VA-46 and VA-72 were retired from fleet service after the air war in Operation Desert Storm.

 

A total of 536 A-7Es were produced.

 

Fuel and Oil Data:

Fuel Grade: JP-4

Internal Fuel Capacity: 1476 gallons

Note: Fuel tank partitioning spoilered below:

Spoiler

Fuel Weight: 10036 lbs (full internal fuel tanks)

Total Oil Capacity: 3.5 gallons 

 

Engine Data:

Manufacturer: Allison

Designation: TF41-A-2 

Type: axial-flow turbofan

Compressor Type: two-spool

Compressor Stages: 3-stage LP, 2-stage IP, 11-stage HP

Combustor Type: Cannular

Turbine Stages: 2-stage LP, 2-stage HP

 

Power Data:

Intermediate Power: 15000 lbf @ ? RPM for 30 min usage

Max Continuous Power: 12950 lbf @ ? RPM for continuous usage

 

Dimensional Data: 

Length: 46.13 ft

Height: 16.06 ft

Wing Span: 38.73 ft

Wing Area: 375 sq. ft 

Wing Loading: 69.65 lbs/sq. ft @ clean combat weight

Note: Additional dimensional data spoilered below:

Spoiler

 

Weight Data:

Empty Weight: 18546 lbs

Clean Combat Weight: 26117 lbs

Clean Takeoff Weight: 30131 lbs

Attack Mission (w/ 12 Mk.82 bombs & 6 Mk.81 bombs) Takeoff Weight: 39465 lbs

Maximum Overload Takeoff Weight: 42000 lbs

Maximum Carrier Landing Weight: 25300 lbs

 

General Performance Data (intermediate power, clean takeoff weight of 30131 lbs):

Max Speed: 602 knots (1114.9 kph) @ SL

Rate of Climb @ SL: 9380 ft/min (47.65 m/s) 

Time from SL to 20000 ft: 2.6 min

Time from SL to 30000 ft: 4.4 min

Power-off, 25° flaps Stall Speed: 129.3 knots (239.46 kph)

Takeoff Distance (ground run): 2670 ft (@ 59°F)

Service Ceiling: 43280 lbs

 

NOTE: exact speed:altitude figures have limited accuracy (+/- 5 knots) due to SAC graph resolution in some instances.

Maximum Speeds (intermediate power, combat weight of 26117 lbs, clean configuration):

At SL: 602 knots (1114.9 kph)

At 10000 ft: ~594 knots (1100.09 kph)

At 20000 ft: ~578 knots (1070.46 kph)

At 30000 ft: ~555 knots (1027.86 kph)

At 40000 ft: ~527 knots (976 kph)

 

NOTE: exact speed:altitude figures have limited accuracy (+/- 5 knots) due to SAC graph resolution in some instances.

Maximum Speeds (intermediate power, loiter mission w/ 12 Mk.82 bombs & 6 Mk.81 bombs, takeoff weight of 39465 lbs):

At SL: 500 knots (926 kph)

At 5000 ft: 502 knots (929.7 kph)

At 10000 ft: 505 knots (935.26 kph)

At 20000 ft: ~492 knots (911.18 kph)

At 30000 ft: ~441 knots (816.73 kph)

 

NOTE: exact climb:altitude figures have limited accuracy due to SAC graph resolution.

Rate of Climb (intermediate power, combat weight of 26117 lbs, clean configuration):

At SL: 10320 ft/min (52.43 m/s)

At 10000 ft: ~8800 ft/min (44.7 m/s)

At 20000 ft: ~7300 ft/min (37.08 m/s)

At 23000 ft: 6780 ft/min (34.44 m/s)

At 30000 ft: ~4900 ft/min (24.89 m/s)

At 40000 ft: ~1600 ft/min (8.13 m/s) 

 

NOTE: exact climb:altitude figures have limited accuracy due to SAC graph resolution.

Rate of Climb (intermediate power, loiter mission w/ 12 Mk.82 bombs & 6 Mk.81 bombs, takeoff weight of 39465 lbs):

At SL: 5850 ft/min (29.72 m/s)

At 5000 ft: 5220 ft/min (26.52 m/s)

At 10000 ft: ~4300 ft/min (21.84 m/s)

At 20000 ft: ~2400 ft/min (12.19 m/s)

At 30000 ft: ~350 ft/min (1.78 m/s)

 

Armament: 

Guns: 1x M61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon (1000 rounds max, 500 rounds typical)

Missiles:

• 2x AIM-9J/L Sidewinders
• AGM-65 Maverick
• AGM-84 Harpoon
• AGM-88 HARM

Bombs Ordnance: 6x pylons (3 per side) w/ 4x pylons @ 3500 lb capacity & 2x @ 2500 lb capacity

• Mk.82 500 lb bombs
• Mk.82 500 lb Snakeye bomb
• Mk.83 1000 lb bomb
• Mk.117 750 lb bomb
• CBU-30 cluster bomb
• Rockeye cluster bomb
• BLU-27 Napalm bomb
• Mk.84 2000 lb bomb
• 2000 lb laser guided bomb
• 500 lb laser guided bomb

Rockets Ordnance: 6x pylons (3 per side) w/ 4x pylons @ 3500 lb capacity & 2x @ 2500 lb capacity

• LAU-10 Zuni rocket pods (4 rockets per pod)
• LAU-32 2.75" rocket pods (7 rockets per pod)
• LAU-3/3A 2.75" rocket pods (19 rockets per pod)

Note: Ordnance breakdown from SAC spoilered below (not all types listed)

Spoiler

 

Sources:

[1] Standard Aircraft Characteristics A-7E (Allison TF41-A-2 Engine) Vought Aeronautics, NAVAIR 00-110AA7-4, April 1972

[2] A-7 Corsair II in detail & scale by Bert Kinzey, D&S Vol.22, Airlife Publishing, Ltd.

[3] A-7 Corsair II in action by Al Adcock, Aircraft Number 120 squadron/signal publications, 1991, ISBN: 0-89747-272-1

[4] A-7 Corsair II Walk Around Number 44 by Lou Drendel, Squadron/Signal Publications, 2006, ISBN 0-89747-508-9

[5] Vought A-7 Corsair II by Robert F Dorr, Osprey Air Combat, Osprey Publishing Limited, 1985, ISBN: 0-85045-626-6

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by Aquilachrysaetos

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion. 

[Milocat 4,857]

+1.  Would be a great ground attacker for tier 6.

[RanchSauce39 397]

SO apart from being able to land on carriers for the A7E, Why suggest both A7D and A7E, when they are otherwise nearly identical aircraft apart from some additional weapons types? Perhaps when separation of USAF and US Navy attackers?  Otherwise wouldn't it make more sense to instead start with an A7A for Eg? for more natural progression?

 

Either way the A7E has larger versatility due to couple more guided weapons like AGM88, or AGM84 Harpoon.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Also I find it interesting that the US navy would use the AIm9J, a USAF based Aim9 and not their versions.

 

US navy had their own sidewinders after the AIm9B . The Aim9D,G,H until Aim9L which was a jointly developed and utilized missile along with the USAF. Similarily USAF based sidewinders after the B were AIm9E/J/P until the L.

 

Also to note that Agm45 Shrike was also aparently utilized on A7E's in Vietnam, and at least as late as 1986 in Operation El dorado canyon, as there is photos of it from Vietnam utilizing it, plus book source

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[krise_madsen 442]

1 hour ago, RanchSauce39 said:

SO apart from being able to land on carriers for the A7E, Why have both A7D and A7E, when they are otherwise nearly identical aircraft?

 

 

Because you can copy-paste most of the 3D model, flight model and stats; two aircraft for the development costs of one. Put one in the regular tech tree and sell the other as a premium or in a pack, or as an event prize.

[RanchSauce39 397]

18 minutes ago, krise_madsen said:

 

Because you can copy-paste most of the 3D model, flight model and stats; two aircraft for the development costs of one. Put one in the regular tech tree and sell the other as a premium or in a pack, or as an event prize.

 

Um no.....

 

A7D or A7E ( whichever gets added) is not valid to make the other as a premium vehicle. These are mass produced aircraft, that are standard service vehicles, just for different services within the US. Neither is there any incentive to grind it an identical vehicle in an event.

 

Premium vehicles should be either prototypes, Unique variations ( skins, weapons,  experimental modifications) , captured stuff,  an/or export/ foreign modified derivatives

Edited August 2, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[krise_madsen 442]

1 hour ago, RanchSauce39 said:

 

Um no.....

 

A7D or A7E ( whichever gets added) is not valid to make the other as a premium vehicle. These are mass produced aircraft, that are standard service vehicles, just for different services within the US. Neither is there any incentive to grind it an identical vehicle in an event.

 

Premium vehicles should be either prototypes, Unique variations ( skins, weapons,  experimental modifications) , captured stuff,  an/or export/ foreign modified derivatives

 

Okay then. Why both? Because both are mass produced, standard service aircraft that both belong in the regular tech tree. And still two aircraft for the development costs of one.

[PremiumFuelOnly 1,604]

5 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

SO apart from being able to land on carriers for the A7E, Why suggest both A7D and A7E, when they are otherwise nearly identical aircraft apart from some additional weapons types? Perhaps when separation of USAF and US Navy attackers?  Otherwise wouldn't it make more sense to instead start with an A7A for Eg? for more natural progression?

 

Either way the A7E has larger versatility due to couple more guided weapons like AGM88, or AGM84 Harpoon.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Also I find it interesting that the US navy would use the AIm9J, a USAF based Aim9 and not their versions.

 

US navy had their own sidewinders after the AIm9B . The Aim9D,G,H until Aim9L which was a jointly developed and utilized missile along with the USAF. Similarily USAF based sidewinders after the B were AIm9E/J/P until the L.

 

Also to note that Agm45 Shrike was also aparently utilized on A7E's in Vietnam, and at least as late as 1986 in Operation El dorado canyon, as there is photos of it from Vietnam utilizing it, plus book source

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because there are suggestions for multiple variants doesn't mean every variant needs to make it in-game. It's about providing information on multiple important/significant variants and having the option to choose which one is most suitable or preferred. 

 

A little bit of thinking goes a long way. Try it next time.

[RanchSauce39 397]

1 hour ago, Aquilachrysaetos said:

 

Just because there are suggestions for multiple variants doesn't mean every variant needs to make it in-game.

 

Its one thing to suggest different variations that are actually different, vs nearly idential ones in 2 separate threads.

 

These 2 suggestions could have easily been merged into 1 thread just because of how similar they are.

IE like this one. which covered 3 similar variations, provided information on the differences  and as a cherry on top  still got passed to development anyways.

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

It's about providing information on multiple important/significant variants and having the option to choose which one is most suitable or preferred. 

 

like i have provided?

 

besides if your intent is just only to provide information this is a place that also exists as an alternative where there is no bias or pressure for passing stuff into game without being a suggestion.

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/forum/29-aircraft-discussion/

 

 

Quote

 

A little bit of thinking goes a long way. Try it next time.

 

Or perhaps it simply a difference of a way of thinking not lack of thinking.

 

In any case hence bringing up the fact this would  sense for a a spilit USAF/ USN tree.... ....

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

On 01/08/2019 at 19:10, Aquilachrysaetos said:

• 2x AIM-9J/L Sidewinders
• AGM-65 Maverick
• AGM-84 Harpoon
• AGM-88 HARM

 

For this, I'm voting no. Those are weapons beyond the game's limitations. The Sidewinders for example are all-aspect and tolerable to 20G or more. Unless we get chaffs, flares and they further increase the game's tech cap, I will keep my vote as it is. But if missiles as good as those officially became a thing in the future, then I'll support it when that happens. 

[lil_midas@psn 1]

+1 would fit perfectly after the FJ-4B

 

 

 

 

 

             

[RanchSauce39 397]

On 03/08/2019 at 20:34, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

For this, I'm voting no. Those are weapons beyond the game's limitations. The Sidewinders for example are all-aspect and tolerable to 20G or more. Unless we get chaffs, flares and they further increase the game's tech cap, I will keep my vote as it is. But if missiles as good as those officially became a thing in the future, then I'll support it when that happens. 

 

We already have the all aspect Aim9L for the AH1Z.

 

That being said remember that  the AIm9L didnt enter operational service until 1978 at the earliest. The A7E came around very start of the 70s.  If necessary For balance reasons  Gajin can easily just give it earlier generation rear aspect missiles until it becomes deemed nessary to allow researchable progression to an all aspect one.

Edited August 6, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

22 hours ago, RanchSauce39 said:

We already have the all aspect Aim9L for the AH1Z

 

It's because helicopters play out differently, they explained why THE AH-1Z in one of 1.85's devblogs 

 

They still don't want jet gameplay to become boring with fire and forget missiles

 

I know you know this well

[RanchSauce39 397]

12 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

It's because helicopters play out differently, they explained why THE AH-1Z in one of 1.85's devblogs 

 

They still don't want jet gameplay to become boring with fire and forget missiles

 

I know you know this well

 

Hence

 

On 05/08/2019 at 22:19, RanchSauce39 said:

 

We already have the all aspect Aim9L for the AH1Z.

 

That being said remember that  the AIm9L didnt enter operational service until 1978 at the earliest. The A7E came around very start of the 70s.  If necessary For balance reasons  Gajin can easily just give it earlier generation rear aspect missiles until it becomes deemed nessary to allow researchable progression to an all aspect one.

 

To elaborate 

 

 

A7 is a subsonic attack jet in an era of supersonics. It can only go defensive in a2a. Its not a fighter. It will face supersonics at top b.r.

 

 

A7e can get anything from aim9b ranging to  aim9d/g/h before the aim9L was available, given its doi is 1970. Well before aim9l. 

 

Lots of top tier vehicles in war thunder dont have thier best muntions. Just because a7 it got all aspect missile later in life doesn't mean it needs to get one.

 

So no an a7e is not too advanced to be introduced

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[EpicBlitzkrieg87 8,350]

1 hour ago, RanchSauce39 said:

To elaborate 

 

 

A7 is a subsonic attack jet in an era of supersonics. It can only go defensive in a2a. Its not a fighter. It will face supersonics at top b.r.

 

 

A7e can get anything from aim9b ranging to  aim9d/g/h before the aim9L was available, given its doi is 1970. Well before aim9l. 

 

Lots of top tier vehicles in war thunder dont have thier best muntions. Just because a7 it got all aspect missile later in life doesn't mean it needs to get one.

 

So no an a7e is not too advanced to be introduced

 

 

When you have an all-aspect missile that can tolerate up to 20G or perhaps more, being subsonic against supersonic jets matters very little, and if it could actually carry AIM-9B and E missiles then it was unwise of him not to include those in the OP

[RanchSauce39 397]

9 hours ago, EpicBlitzkrieg87 said:

 

When you have an all-aspect missile that can tolerate up to 20G or perhaps more, being subsonic against supersonic jets matters very little,

 

 

 

Aim9L in war thunder may as well perform what amounts to what would be an all aspect Aim9B. Although i  havent yet bothered to research helos I see Ah1Z's in custom battles all the time, and can dodge them even in prop planes. There seems to be something really messed up with missile logic as they directly tail chase you ( not  "shooting ahead" intercept based algorithm, a feature since Aim9J or USN Aim9D). They at time still are able to loose lock if you do various jinks, or during aggressive maneuvers, despite on paper having superior G to anything a pilot  ( or air frame before Over G) could endure even within realms of WT.

 

They are no doubt more effective than any preceding sidewinder, but don't perform anywhere near as would be expected.

 

Not to mention silly Missile (IR) warning lock. But I suppose both are totally different matters. I agree a properlly functioning Aim9L especially without Missile warning would be too deadly.  IN any case, that is why i noted it doesn't have to be included. early rear aspect aim9's are still within meta.

 

 

Quote

 

 

and if it could actually carry AIM-9B and E missiles then it was unwise of him not to include those in the OP

 

Yes it is. especially if you know the history of Missile developments. US navy would not be using the AIm9J as OP has noted.

 

The US navy used different AIm9 missiles than  thier air force therein,  ( with excepton of Aim9B) until the Aim9L was developed

 

 

Both developed thier own missile.   ( See USAF Aim4 Falcon series, VS US Navies Aim9's and Aim7's from contemporary periods of 1956- 1963. basically USAF based missiles were total crap, which is saying alot knowing the lackluster performance of early aim9's and Aim7' in Nam)  which forced USAF to adopt US Navy catered missile designs, of which the IR based ones ( AIM9's) they designed thier own variants after Aim9B until eventually when they finally agreed to jointly adopt same missiles  designed by same defense contractor which was when the Aim9L being the first missile being same common type employed by both services since Aim9B.

 

 

After Aim9B (until Aim9L)

 

Dedicated USAF IR based missiles

 

Aim9E/J/N/P

 

 

Dedicated US Navy IR based Missiles

 

Aim9D/G/H

 

 

https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-Sidewinder-94.html

 

 

Spoiler

 

In general  Aim9H seems to have been regarded as the best pre all aspect AIm9 variant. Although "funny" ( # better at playing politics)  enough seeing what export users had pre aim9L, the USAF based Aim9E/J/N/P ended up being the prime ones for export sales to nations operating us aircraft, as opposed USN based sidewinders.

 

 

Aim9 missile history, and associated inter-service rivalry aside, whilst i have not been able to find A7E flight manual or Dash 34  yet, Aim9D directly in published works as a missile A7E could carry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2019 by RanchSauce39

[RanchSauce39 397]

Bump. Would be nice to have along A-7D, although i always though it would have been more consistent to have had naval version over the Air force corsair considering all much all the attackers tier 5 and up prior to the A7D have been all naval attackers.

 

also since then come across a later manual publication. Deciding to share this A-7E Natops manual from 1987 ( revised 1989)

 

https://mega.nz/file/avwUzTxa#mX8k9aiver9I2QRNf5x3fsAC1tcLldSH7Mli4RqhkQs

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2021 by RanchSauce39

[RanchSauce39 397]

On 01/08/2019 at 16:10, Aquilachrysaetos said:

 

Armament: 

Guns: 1x M61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon (1000 rounds max, 500 rounds typical)

Missiles:

• 2x AIM-9J/    Aim9D/G/H and Aim9L Sidewinders
• AGM-65 Maverick
• AGM 62 Walleye I and II
• AGM 62 Walleye ERDL I and II  ( used  in conjunction with AWW datalink pod)
• AGM 123 skipper II
• AGM-84 Harpoon
• AGM45 Shrike
• AGM-88 HARM

Bombs Ordnance: 6x pylons (3 per side) w/ 4x pylons @ 3500 lb capacity & 2x @ 2500 lb capacity

• Mk.82 500 lb bombs
• Mk.82 500 lb Snakeye bomb
• Mk.83 1000 lb bomb
• Mk.117 750 lb bomb
• CBU-30 cluster bomb
• Rockeye cluster bomb
• BLU-27 Napalm bomb
• Mk.84 2000 lb bomb
• 2000 lb laser guided bomb
• 500 lb laser guided bomb

 

 

 

made some edits. based on research and manual.

[spacenavy90 1,402]

Since this was one of the vehicle models discovered in the leaks a few weeks ago, its safe to say this vehicle has at least been 'considered'. Whether or not we actually see it in the game or not is anyone's guess. Personally I don't see much reason to have another variant of the A7 especially since the current version is more than capable.

[MonkeyBussiness 1,228]

same , i don't see the point in adding a "navalised version of the A-7D" if it bring nothing more ,maybe as an event/premium in the future seeing how they add 10.0-ish premium at tier 6 to grind the new tier 7 i can easily see it as the CAS premium while the F-5C is the fighter but other than that

[leroyonly 4,311]

As the A-7E Corsair II has been implemented with update 2.11 Ground Breaking,

 

Moved to Implemented Suggestions.